why do some Christians reply to the question "What denomination are you?" with...

[PRmerger]

Yes. I know that you’re leading me somewhere here.

Indeed, I am.

So do you believe that there is no error in the 27 book canon of the NT?

What is included is actually theopneustos, and what is not included is not actually inspired?

That is, you can be assured that there is no error in saying, “The Epistle to Titus is the Word of God but the Epistle of Barnabas is not the Word of God”?

 

[Lek]

What about if a Christian discerns that all of the Pauline epistles are not inspired?

Do you believe that, since he’s doing the best he can, and sincerely believes from his prayer and discernment, that these epistles must be thrown out of the Bible, that he ought to be able to do this?

If he is a true follower of Christ, I don’t believe he will be led to that decision. But, as you say, I can’t judge what is in his heart. If he is being led by the Holy Spirit, he won’t be led away from Christ. The Holy Spirit leads us to the truth, and that truth is that we are saved through Jesus Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

If he is a true follower of Christ, I don’t believe he will be led to that decision. But, as you say, I can’t judge what is in his heart. If he is being led by the Holy Spirit, he won’t be led away from Christ. The Holy Spirit leads us to the truth, and that truth is that we are saved through Jesus Christ.

Can someone think he’s a true follower of Christ but actually be a “faux” believer?

 

[Thorolfr]

Can someone think he’s a true follower of Christ but actually be a “faux” believer?

I’m sure that everyone will find out, including many Catholics, whether they are true believers when Christ “will come to judge the living and the dead.”

 

[Lek]

Where does Scripture say to do that?

We test it by comparing it to the pillar and foundation of Truth, which is…

the Church.

1 Timothy 3:15.

The Biblical thing to do is to test things with what the Church says, not to “test it against Scripture”.

The bible doesn’t say to specifically test what we hear by scripture. Since scripture is the word of God, that is where I go. In your passage in 1 Timothy Paul is actually writing scripture as he is giving instructions to Timothy. Timothy is receiving instruction from Paul’s letter, which will later be included in the new testament. The church is the pillar and foundation of truth. The church upholds the truth, which comes from the apostles through the words of the scripture. The church, which is made up collectively of all followers of Christ, is the protector of the truth.

Show me how you came to believe that the church magisterium has the authority to give the final word on matters of doctrine. Not only that, but where does it say the magisterium has the authority to make morally-binding rules such as going to mass on Sundays and holy days, which could result in spending eternity in hell if disobeyed. Even the original apostles didn’t go that far.

 

[Lek]

Can someone think he’s a true follower of Christ but actually be a “faux” believer?

Of course.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course.

So how does one distinguish between a true believer and a faux believer?

Does a true believer believe in infant baptism or a “believer’s” baptism?
Does a true believer believe in divorce and re-marriage, or believe it’s adultery?
Does a true believer believe in Sunday as the day of worship or is it Saturday?

etc etc etc

 

[PRmerger]

The bible doesn’t say to specifically test what we hear by scripture.

I hope you’re seeing a pattern here, Lek. There’s quite a few things that you are proclaiming that aren’t found in the Bible. They are “assumptions” (your word) you’ve been assigning to your beliefs.

Since scripture is the word of God, that is where I go

Certainly. But you ONLY know what Scripture is…by giving your tacit submission to the authority of the Church.

You would not know that the Gospel of Mark is the inspired Word of God, except that you trust in the authority of the magisterium of the CC.

In your passage in 1 Timothy Paul is actually writing scripture as he is giving instructions to Timothy. Timothy is receiving instruction from Paul’s letter, which will later be included in the new testament.

Yes.

The church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Amen!

The church upholds the truth, which comes from the apostles through the words of the scripture.

Indeed. Just not ONLY the words of Scripture. (Another assumption you’ve made that is NOT found in a single page of the Bible).

The church, which is made up collectively of all followers of Christ, is the protector of the truth.

How does that work, exactly, when this collective group disagrees on the meaning of almost every single doctrine?

To wit: is baptism a sacrament, or an ordinance?
Should it be done by sprinkling, or by immersion?
In a river or in a font?
Is the soul immortal or does it get annihilated at death?
Is Jesus the brother of the archangel Michael?
Do we keep kosher?
Are musical instruments permitted at our worship services?
Are the Pauline epistles satanic?

etc etc etc

 

[PRmerger]

Show me how you came to believe that the church magisterium has the authority to give the final word on matters of doctrine.

My proof is you.

That you have given the magisterium the authority to discern that there are 27 books for the NT tells me that whatever paradigm you follow is reasonable.

Why do you believe that the Catholic Church got it right on this 27 book canon, Lek?

 

[Lek]

So how does one distinguish between a true believer and a faux believer?

Does a true believer believe in infant baptism or a “believer’s” baptism?
Does a true believer believe in divorce and re-marriage, or believe it’s adultery?
Does a true believer believe in Sunday as the day of worship or is it Saturday?

etc etc etc

God knows. We do know that whoever denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh is not of God and he has the spirit of the antichrist per 1 John 4:3.

 

[Lek]

My proof is you.

That you have given the magisterium the authority to discern that there are 27 books for the NT tells me that whatever paradigm you follow is reasonable.

Why do you believe that the Catholic Church got it right on this 27 book canon, Lek?

Your wrong on that. I haven’t given the catholic church magisterium the authority. I credit the accomplishment of that task to the christian church.

 

[PRmerger]

Your wrong on that. I haven’t given the catholic church magisterium the authority. I credit the accomplishment of that task to the christian church.

Either way, you submit to an authority.

Whatever reason you give for trusting this authority is going to be my answer to your question.

So why do you submit to the authority of this entity, this “Christian church”, that is NOT the Bible?

 

[PRmerger]

God knows. We do know that whoever denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh is not of God and he has the spirit of the antichrist per 1 John 4:3.

Amen!

But that still doesn’t address the question of how we know what’s a true believer vs a faux believer–and a true belief vs a false belief, if all we have to go by is the Bible?

Does the Bible state that Sunday is the day of worship? If so, then why are there some

 

[Lek]

Either way, you submit to an authority.

Whatever reason you give for trusting this authority is going to be my answer to your question.

So why do you submit to the authority of this entity, this “Christian church”, that is NOT the Bible?

The christian church is the “Body of Christ” which is referred to in the bible. The body of Christ is made of all followers of Christ. That is who makes up the christian church.

 

[Lek]

Amen!

But that still doesn’t address the question of how we know what’s a true believer vs a faux believer–and a true belief vs a false belief, if all we have to go by is the Bible?

Does the Bible state that Sunday is the day of worship? If so, then why are there some

We can’t look at any individual and decide whether or not he is a christian. If a person comes to my church and wants to worship with us and he professes to follow Christ, I would welcome him.

The bible doesn’t state what the special day of worship should be. The early christians chose to worship together on Sunday, but I don’t see anything arbitrary in that. What if someone sets aside Wednesday to be his special day of worship? We should worship God every day. What difference does it make what day of the week some may decide to come together to worship? It seems a rather petty, legalistic issue to me.

 

[PRmerger]

The christian church is the “Body of Christ” which is referred to in the bible. The body of Christ is made of all followers of Christ. That is who makes up the christian church.

So walk me through this process, Lek, of how the early Christian church determined which books belong in the NT.

If we follow your model, which is a group as a “collective” discerned the canon…how did this work?

If we follow the model of the Catholic Church, we had a system in place of elders, or bishops, anointed by the Apostles, (or anointed by those who were anointed by the Apostles), who had authority to discern this canon. They decided.

How does a collective group of people make this decision in your model?

Oh, and thank you, BTW, for your charitable discourse/responses.

 

[PRmerger]

We can’t look at any individual and decide whether or not he is a christian. If a person comes to my church and wants to worship with us and he professes to follow Christ, I would welcome him.

Indeed. So would the Catholic Church.

But that still doesn’t solve the problem of how one discerns a correct belief from an incorrect belief.

If all one needs is the Bible and the Holy Spirit, it would appear using your paradigm that everyone can profess anything, and it would all be correct.

You would not be able to tell someone, “That is not a correct interpretation of the Bible” because all she has to do is say, “How do you know? I’m doing the exact same thing you did. I just came to a different interpretation. I prayed and read the Bible, and I believe that it is an abomination to have musical instruments in church services and any service that has one is paying homage to the devil.” And then she quotes a Bible verse to you that putatively supports this.

 

[PRmerger]

The bible doesn’t state what the special day of worship should be.

That is correct.

Keep in mind that this is *another *example of a belief you have that is NOT found in the Bible. Rather you are deferring to tradition and submitting to the authority of some other entity for this particular belief.

What difference does it make what day of the week some may decide to come together to worship? It seems a rather petty, legalistic issue to me.

How can you say that, given your paradigm? Some folks–millions of folks, actually–claim to have read the Bible, prayed to the Holy Spirit, and discerned that Saturday is the day of worship and anyone who worships on Sunday is paying homage to the devil.

In your paradigm, you cannot tell them: this is wrong.

For all they have to do is say: I did the exact thing you claim is what we need to do to come to a truth–I read the Bible and I have the Holy Spirit to guide me.

 

[Porknpie]

The church, which is made up collectively of all followers of Christ, is the protector of the truth.

Interesting Lek, even in the apostolic age, there were those proclaiming a variant Christian message but not the One Faith handed down from Christ to the apostles themselves. Paul urges Timothy to stay in Ephesus so that the true gospel can be taught.

1 Timothy 1

3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedo′nia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,

So the Church in time distinguished itself from those teaching a non-Apostolic Christian faith. The Church established by Christ himself was called the Catholic Church. St. Ignatius is the first writing that we have of this name in 110ad. He was a disciple of St. John, who himself…was taught by Christ. So we can trust St. Ignatius. And we can see him writing about the Priests, Bishops and Deacons of this Catholic Church. And he describes a proper Eucharist, which was a belief that the bread and wine actually became the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

And this Catholic Church, established by Christ, had One Faith throughout the World.

“[N]or does it consist in this, that he should again falsely imagine, as being above this [fancied being], a Pleroma at one time supposed to contain thirty, and at another time an innumerable tribe of Aeons, as these teachers who are destitute of truly divine wisdom maintain; while** the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world,** as we have already said.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

And Christ’s Church, is bound together by a cement of Priests:

”Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.” Cyprian, To Florentius, Epistle 66/67 (A.D. 254).

So within the context of all the followers of Christ, there are some “denominations” that have more or less truth than others; but none has the fullness of Truth that is found in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church established by Christ. As examples, in your church if you do not have: priests, bishops, a belief in salvific baptism, a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Priest required), then you are not following The Church established by Christ. The Catholic Church as St. Ignatius refers to.

Lastly, if your bible only has 66 books, then you do not have the same canon of Scripture that the Church has had since ~400 ad. You are missing 7 inspired and inerrant books.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

But that doesn’t make any sense. If they are ignorant of the fact that there is only one church, wouldn’t you expect them not to be defensive when asked about their denomination?
** Non-denominational’s do and believe a lot of things that don’t make sense to me. Part of why I am no longer one. But that they get defensive makes sense to me. I don’t know what to say if it does not make sense to you**

Well, not exactly. It is true that many non-denominational churches are evangelical churches and that evangelicals believe that all who profess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and have truly repented of their sins are part of the one Church, which is invisible. Nevertheless, evangelicals do believe in a visible church. The visible church is a congregation of faithful men and women in which the Word of God is preached. In other words, the visible church is the local church.

Maybe you and some, but not all. That is my experience. I am a ex protestant and been around a lot of protestans. Not like I am just talking having never been one. I have been Non-denominational, Lutheran and Pentecostal.

Well, like most words in the English language, “religion” can have multiple meanings. What many Christians object to when they say “Religion won’t save you” is that outward conformity and “adherence to an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods” will not save you no matter how faithful you are to such institutionalized religion. What saves is being truly converted into a disciple of Jesus Christ. When that happens, we won’t just conform outwardly to a religious system but we will be changed internally, God’s law will be written on our hearts.

I know what they mean. Like I said, I was a protestant who objected to “Religion” What I am saying is that It is not a Catholic teaching that “Religion” or “The rules” save you. A lot of non-Catholic Christians seem to think that is what The Catholic Church teaches. I am sure some ignorant Catholics may believe that, but it is not a Church Teaching.

** I cut out the definitions to save space, Thank you for that though **

Well, you are using a rather restrictive definition of “denomination.” That word has come to mean a specific organization or “church body” with general rules and at least minimal subscription to basic shared beliefs that unites individual congregations together. Non-denominational churches are in fact non-denominational for their lack of affiliation or subordination to any higher level “church body.”

** I Agree to disagree. Unless all non-denominations have the exact same beliefs and interpret scripture the same way, they WILL have something distinct about them that separated them from other non-denominations and that makes them all different denominations whether they like it or not. That is my thoughts anyway. Like I said, we can agree to disagree.
**

Church or denominational bodies or organizations can be structured in different ways. There are generally said to be 3 “pure” types of church polity: episcopal (probably purest in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches), presbyterian (which features a hierarchy of church councils consisting of lay and ordained elders: (local) church session, presbytery, synod, and General Assembly), or congregational (where congregational voting is practiced, like in the Southern Baptist Convention). Some denominations feature a hybrid of 2 or even all 3 of the “pure” church polity models.

Ok, then.

That poster is actually correct. You probably won’t find too many individuals who specifically left mainline churches for non-denominational ones for those reasons. Nevertheless, there is a broad historical trend that indeed has worked out that way.

Non-denominational churches are mainly either fundamentalist or evangelical in doctrinal orientation. The fundamentalists and evangelicals split from the mainline churches over the prevalence of modernist or liberal theology within those historic churches.

Look up the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy for some historical context if the topic interests you. This process of American Protestantism dividing between mainline and evangelical has occupied the entire 20th century.
** Well, you learn something new everyway. Thank you for that breakdown brother **